Can anyone confirm id?

[PMG]

I'm 98% certain its a nightingale (so lucky you!) my reasons are: the pale eye ring, the hint of greyness around the collar, the paler under chin, the wings definitely with the darker middles - esp the three close to the rump and I think that rump is ever so slightly rusty! Also that almost stocky beak, the skulking in the bushes and peering out. . . yep I've convinced myself - what about you?!!!

[glsammy]

I'm delighted if it is! I've never managed to get one before.
It took me over an hour watching the movement in the bushes before I got this shot.

[cannylad]

I also think this is a Nightingale.



brian.

[Wild-Woman]

I think this is a nightingale because of the reddy brown colour of the rump. Julie

[glsammy]

Thanks all of you, I agree it's a Nightingale. My first!

[ianj]

Hi Graham,

It is doesn't look like either a Wiilow Warbler or Chiffchaff. If anything, it looks like a Garden Warbler - whose main distinguishing feature is that has no distinguishing features at all!
It could possibly be a Nightingale, but if you have a look at my website, I have a number of Nightingale photos which I took earlier this year, and you may be able to make a comparison.
http://www.wildlifeindigital.co.uk
cheers
Ian

[Nick Robinson]

Sorry, I’m just not buying that this bird is a nightingale. And there are several reasons why...

1). The bill is just too chunky at the tip for nightingale
2). There is a pronounced supercilium
3). The underside is a warm buff and not cold / pale white / grey of a nightingale
4). The Alula is way too small (unless it’s a Thrush Nightingale)
5). There appears to be a number of emarginations on the primaries that nightingales do not have
6). The rump does not appear to have any rufus tones that all nightingale sp. have, and
7). The legs are chunky and grey.

All of these features are shown by garden warblers and that is what my identification would indeed be.

[chunkychambers]

Hello Nick and welcome to WAB it's a great site I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

The trouble with this ID is the shot is taken in dapple shade. In my earlier posts I was uncertain between Garden Warbler and Nightingale but chose Nightingale for the following reasons:- 1) the legs seem to be light coloured, GW are dark
2) the bird gives me the impression of being chunky, GW are a smaller size similar to Willow Warbler.
3) the colours, imo, are brownish-grey, typical Nightingale
4) the pale eye ring is less obvious in the GW
5) and finally I do see a hint of the rufous colouring toward the rump hinting at the Nightingales most obvious feature.

It's a difficult one but I'm sticking to my original thoughts of Nightingale, at least we can assure glsammy that it's definetely not Willow Warbler or Chiff-chaff

[Nick Robinson]

Well, I can agree with you on one thing and that is it is certainly isn’t a Phylloscopus warbler of any sort. Other than that we are on different planets.
1). The legs are obviously light grey and chunky. Perfect for garden warblers. I’m not sure where you got the perception that garden warblers have dark legs, but that just isn’t true.
2). Garden warblers are smaller and similar in size to willow warbler??? You are joking I hope?!? They are a Sylvia warbler and as such, are the chunkiest of the warblers. Nightingales are quite a bit larger, but they are a sleeker, thrush-like bird, but that is pretty hard to be definitive about in this photograph.
3). Brownish grey – yeah, I’ll give you that, but again you are mistaken in saying that brownish-grey is typical for nightingales. Nightingales always have warm brown upperpart colouration with much cooler white / grey underparts.
4). The substantial representation of a pale eye ring is hard to judge, but it certainly would be emphasised in a ‘face-on’ photograph like this. Nightingales tend to have complete eye rings with emphasis on the upper eye ring. Quite the opposite of what this bird has.
5). I cannot dispute that you may see a hint of a rufous rump, but as you say, ‘Nightingales most obvious feature.’ However, it’s far from obvious and given the warm colouration on the back of this bird the rufous would be pretty obvious.
Unfortunately, you have seized upon a few of the potentially debateable and contentious features that each and all could have a different opinion on and totally ignored the facts that are ‘staring you in the face’ namely, the pale supercilium, the alula and the emarginations on the primaries. Other indicators (other than those discussed above) are the chunky nature of the bill and the warm underpart colouration. In addition, whilst looking again I can also note that there appears to be a greyish collar and this is also a feature of garden warbler and not nightingale.
So, to summarise, whilst the photograph isn’t ideal for identification (and probably makes it impossible to ever be 100% certain of the species of bird in question), if we look at the real evidence and not the subjective details then it’s more likely to be a garden warbler than a nightingale.

[Alan]

There seems to be a lot of emphasis on colouration in this pic, but please remember unless your monitor is calibrated, it's likely that each of us will be seeing slightly different colours. As an exorcise, try de-saturating (convert to greyscale) the colours in photoshop or similar, and see what impression it gives you then!

I still stand with my original thought (although Imaginos mentioned it first!), that being it's a Garden Warbler.